So you liked old turn based RPG battles? Too bad for you. Final Fantasy XIII's newly confirmed battle designer Toshio Tsuchida must not be interested in going the way of the dinosaur. Tetsuya Nomura, lead character designer on all three titles of the Fabula Nova Chrysallis Final Fantasy XIII project, confirmed that they will not be returning for the next chapter of Square's behemoth RPG series. Also, if you can say Fabula Nova Chrysallis Final Fantasy XIII project 10 times without choking on your own tongue, I'll give you a sandwich. Seriously.
At this point, I think fans of turn based battles may be feeling threatened by their possible disappearance from the RPG universe. Let's face it: when Square does something, a lot of designers tend to follow suit. There will always be indie designers 100 percent dedicated to the retro path, but this may be a mark on the evolution of RPGs as we know them. Personally, after playing the format of FF XII, I have no issues with losing turn based battles from my RPGs as I found the battles more intuitive and fluid than any previous FF.
What's your preference -- turn based or action style?
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
73 comments | showing # 1 to 50
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Now I let you hit me.
Then I hit you.
Then you hit me again.", No.
ACTION FTW.
Though, it could just be the feeling that it's new - and that I haven't gotten sick of it yet.
"Then go talk to a wall." - Squall (FFVIII)
Seriously, what a bastard.
Final Fantasies should be Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests should be Dragon Quests. If the developers want to go make a game that's like Seiken Densetsu, then they should make a new Seiken Densetsu game, not make a Seiken Densetsu game and then brand it as a Final Fantasy game.
I think FFX is a great example of a modern turn based. It was a statistic run far in the background with a pretty and easy to read display.
I think it would be neat to be able to either choose between the two or have boss battles be turn based so they could be more scripted o
They can make new games but pick a new IP to do it with. They can make Dirge of Cerberus, but don't fucking put the FF name on it. they can make a non turn based RPG, but don't put the FF name on it. The same thing has been happening with Sonic, they keep putting the sonic name on games that have nothing to do with what Sonic is really about. I think Mario might be the only series of games that can get away with branching out into whatever they want and still have mario, but Mario is a different case.
Squeenix just needs to make Final Fantasy and everybody will buy it no matter what. They can go make a new RPG and innovate the RPG industry in whatever way they want, just don't call it Final Fantasy.
A good (i.e., fun, challenging) turn-based system is great if it's designed the right way, and I don't think FF has done that since FFVI. Part of the challenge comes from having to quickly decide what the best action will be for a particular turn as you navigate the menus. For the last few FF's, each character has an optimal attack that you can just choose over and over to win, making the battles stale, as Ignignokt said.
I liked the battle system in FFX the most out of all of the games because it leaned heavily toward strategy by allowing you to switch character without penalty and not having the ATB system.
What has made me angry about XII is that strategy just seems stale, get a tank out there, put like 4 buffing spells on him and hack away at the boss or mark you're fighting. I doubt many gamers use gambits for anything more than auto-healing party members, despite some of the eloquent setups you can make with them.
Its a trade-off, but Id personally just rather not feel like I'm playing a single player MMO. On a side note of great RPGs that might get fucked up, I hope to god Bethsada keeps Fallout 3's battle system as close as it can to that of Fallout 2 and 1, I'm gonna shit a brick if its Oblivion with post-nuke models.
Don't get me wrong, I love Destructoid, but where's the love for the strategy games? How can you be a "hardcore" gaming blog if you just stick to mainstream stuff and obscure Japanese games for dead consoles and never mention any decent strategy games?
Nevermind about the e-mail thing...
How do I get my sandwich now????
Final Fantasy 7 and 8 were not any less Final Fantasy for not using medieval settings, although plenty of people made that argument. Nor were they less for using 3D graphics and FMV.
I agree that Square should create new IP, but for different reasons. They should create a new series and kill Final Fantasy off so we can stop comparing new, upcoming games directly to their decade-plus old ancestors and just fucking enjoy them.
Why have they not attempted to make a true mixture?.... Take Final Fantasy 7's battle system... Make it look like the game currently does *13 that be*... And make the game seemingly Action styled.... No pauses..
If the player so wishes to have a turn-based battle. They can turn it on - and every time the action meter fills, the game sort of pauses in mid action to allow you to enter a command you so wish...
This way it acts more like a 'realistic' battle environment with the Action oriented RPG's.. As well as the turn-based classic RPG..
So the visual would be something in the midst of... Cloud is attacking, Vincent is in mid firing, the action menu for Barret fills and thus - the game immediately pauses for you to enter the next command...
Anyhow, this probably isn't the place to type all this up anyhow. I apologize.
They can make new games but pick a new IP to do it with. They can make Dirge of Cerberus, but don't fucking put the FF name on it. they can make a non turn based RPG, but don't put the FF name on it. The same thing has been happening with Sonic, they keep putting the sonic name on games that have nothing to do with what Sonic is really about. I think Mario might be the only series of games that can get away with branching out into whatever they want and still have mario, but Mario is a different case.
Squeenix just needs to make Final Fantasy and everybody will buy it no matter what. They can go make a new RPG and innovate the RPG industry in whatever way they want, just don't call it Final Fantasy.
However, I'm starting to get sick of the standard everyone line up and we take turns smacking each other type of turn based gameplay. Distance and timing need to play a bigger role then just putting archers a step back in the line formation and hopeing my healer heals at the right time.
I don't know why there is so much hate for action gameplay in RPGs, I mean the Tales of "" series has been doing action for years and the've been fun. The one thing that RPGs has had over other genres is that they are long enough to tell a complete story from start to end and made the player feel like a part of the story. I won't go so far as to say all of the stories are good because a lot of them, most definately including later FFs, are teen emo drama induced. So I don't understand why people hate the idea so much of having action play as well. As I see it, it adds gameplay to the story for an all around better experience.
Oh and I havn't played FFXII yet so I can't vouch for it.
Although yes, Milofo has a point re: the action gameplay in the "Tales of..." series. Those games kicked ass.
Turn-based gameplay will still be around ten years from now, anyway. Just look at all the fuss that the FFT port is kicking up.
@Deus: I respect what you're saying about strategy games, but keep in mind that there are, in all honesty, about twenty-ish of us that write for the site, and only there is about five to eight of us that post every day (it's more like four).
We try to cover all the bases of gaming, but not everyone likes every type of game. Since Dtoid is, in essence, still a blog, we tend to write about what we feel passionate about. When we get someone added to the team that loves RTSs, you'll see a shitload more coverage about the genre. In the meantime, enjoy what we have going here.
As far as the matter at hand is concerned; if you're not playing an RPG that's turn based, then you're not playing an RPG. What you're playing is a story based game that has irrelevant battle sequences.
The allure of the RPG is that you have to out-think the computer (ex. in the next round, should character A heal, or fight?). If you decide incorrectly, you will lose the battle and then have to start the battle over. This level of strategy is what makes RPGs different from other games. When you turn the battle system into a pissing contest - like Tales of Symphonia or FFXI - then you lose the strategy element of the game and the game becomes, not an RPG, but something else - boring.
Seriously, who wants to sit around hitting "A" for fourty hours? With "action" RPGs, you do exactly that. You're graced with a story line that explains why you're fighting, but the act of fighting itself is an excercise in button mashing. The turn based battles of yesteryear have far much more to do with strategy, than the action battles of today.
Do y'all agree?
And I can't agree about turn based RPGs having that much more to do with strategy. Games like KOTOR where you strategically plan your moves then watch them executed onscreen in real time don't quite fit neatly into the "turn-based" category, nor does Mass Effect (of course, both games are made by Bioware). Also, MMORPGs still manage to involve strategy, whether it be coordinating a large raid party or planning your next move in PvP. You can't possibly say that doesn't take planning. I will admit though, they do not necessarily require quite as much strategy. But if strategy is the measure of an RPG, you might as well eschew the entire genre and go buy Civ IV (which I highly recommend you do regardless).
I play CivIV WAY too mch myself sometimes. However I don't know of many RTS games coming so people naturally will write less about them. I could be wrong but I don't research too much into it.
@Dyson
Depends on what you mean by strategy. Most turn based turn into do this spell as much as you can and heal when you need to. Or have your healer always heal because the enemy does a lot of damage. Its occasionally mixed up with element weaknesses but those go by the way side later in the game. Games like FFT, Ogre Battle Tactics series, and Front Mission series need stategy because well, they're stategy RPG games.
Turn based works a lot like end game MMOs where you do a certain combination that works lots of times, Grandia play excaped from this somewhat. Early game Turn based style often involves more stategy while end game is more do your number 1 badass move repeatedly to win. Normal enemies around end game are just there for you to gain exp and try and use the least amount of magic as possible for when you face the boss. Its gotten so bad for the standard wait in a line fighting RPG that I can finish most at about 20 hours when everyone else says it takes 40. RPGs are not difficult; the only reason they take more time for some is because they want to earn all the easter eggs.
RPG never really was defined as turnbased, it just something that became common with them. Role-Playing-Game, taking it to the most literal extent, technically any game with a story line could fall under the definition. What ends up making a game a RPG is not the element of stradegy but the element of strong story and character and the ability to raise your characters. This is why there tends to be multiple branches of defining RPG's... the turnbased element when excluded does little to nothing in making a RPG and RPG
Hell, when i think about it, in a way turnbased combat system actually pulls from the concept of "Role-Playing".... i mean, all of the characters fight in turn, yet if we were to see the story, the characters would be fighting in real time, not turns. Looking at RPG's for exmples, i think Star Ocean 3 and Kingdom Hearts would be the closest to how party-based fighting would ACTUALLY go down.
When i think of RPG has my favored Genre, the turnbased style is NOT what i think of... what i think of when i name an RPG as my favored Genre is the story and characters... I mean, you take an RPG and give it any other kind of combat system, the game still has good strength from it's story... however, Take out the Story of a turnbased RPG, and you are left with practically nothing...
Furthar more, i must disagree with the loss of stradegy element in non-turnbased games.
Even more action orientaed games have the lement of stradegy.
i mean overall, just because the game is actionbased doesn't mean it's mindless action... many of those games still give you a wide variety of techniques and magic to use, skills which exsits for a reason. The game usually gives you ways to utilize these skills while the battle goes on.
you still have to use stradegy, but unless you pause the game, you have to deal with the things as they come up in real time.
For instance, with the Star Ocean 3, where you can still select a wide viarety of spells and use various techniques, and need to often switch up your characters skills before certain areas... how is that game any less about stradegy then the usual turnbased games?
You and me both bro..
I'm pretty stoked for Eternal Sonata too.
That will be a different battle system, Free movement but time based, so kinda the best of both worlds
Sandwich please.
No mayo, hold the tomatoes and onion. Mustard.
I was pretty excited to see the new battle system. After having to put up with the next reiteration of menstruating male characters, we finally got to a fight. And I was severely disappointed. I mean, whats up with the arcs connecting you to your target? And it just feels way too repetitive, even compared to turn-based.
No sir, I don't like it.
I'm not saying that Turn Based is definitely the way to go... but let me put it to you this way. I spent over 100 hours of my life to beat FFXII...and towards the end I pretty much had to force myself to so that I didn't feel I got some of my money's worth out of the game. I beat it last weekend and promptly sold it back to a local EBGames. I'm now playing through Dark Cloud 2 (action rpg?) and I love the battle system. I also think the story is a ton better than FFXII to be honest.
Action can work just fine if done properly (Dark Cloud 2, Oblivion, Diablo)... and Turn based can work just fine too (Older FFs, Dragon Quest series, SRPGs like FFT/Disgaea).